RESUMEN

Background and Objective: Due to growing numbers of primary total hip replacement (THR), the revision THR burden is also increasing. Common indications for revision are osteolysis, infection, instability, and mechanical failure of implants, which can cause acetabular bone loss. Massive acetabular bone defects and pelvic discontinuity are extremely challenging problems. Many techniques have been utilized to address bone loss while maintaining a stable revision THR. Structural allografts, cemented prosthesis, reconstruction cages, and custom triflanged implants have all been used successfully albeit with relatively high complications rates. We have tried to highlight emerging trends to utilize Custom Made Monoflange or Triflange Acetabular Components to reconstruct massive acetabular defects with favourable midterm implant survival, better functional outcomes, relatively lesser complications, and almost similar cost of prosthesis as compared to conventional reconstruction techniques. However, long-term data and study is still recommended to draw a definitive conclusion. Methods: In this narrative review article, we searched PubMed and Cochrane for studies on managing acetabular bone loss in revision THR with a focus on recent literature for mid to long-term outcomes and compared results from various studies on different reconstruction methods. Key Content and Findings: Hemispherical cementless acetabular prosthesis with supplemental screws are commonly utilized to manage mild to moderate acetabular bone loss. Recent trends have shown much interest and paradigm shift in patient specific custom triflange acetabular components (CTAC) for reconstructing massive acetabular defects and pelvic discontinuity. Studies have reported high patient satisfaction, improved patient reported daily functioning, high mid-term implant survival, similar complications, and encouraging all cause re-revision rate. However, more prospective and quality studies with larger sample sizes are needed to validate the superiority of CTACs over conventional acetabular implants. Conclusions: There is no consensus regarding the best option for reconstructing massive acetabular defects. Thorough preoperative workup and planning is an absolute requirement for successful revision THR. While most of the moderate acetabular bone loss can be managed with cementless hemispherical acetabular shells with excellent long-term outcomes, reconstructing massive acetabular bone defects in revision THR remains a challenge. Depending on the size and location of the defect, various constucts have demonstrated long-term success as discussed in this review, but complications are not negligible. CTACs provide a treatment for massive bone loss that may be otherwise difficult to achieve anatomic stability with other constructs. Although long-term data is sparse, the cost and complication rate is comparable to other reconstruction methods.

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Diaphyseal fixation remains the mainstay of revision THA. The stability of diaphyseal fixation can be quantified by the extent of contact between the stem and the endosteal cortex. This is highly affected by the morphology of the proximal femur. The purpose of this study was to examine factors affecting diaphyseal contact in the revision THA and to identify preoperative predictors of adequate fixation. METHODS: Three-dimensional femur models were created from CT scans of 33 Dorr B and C femora. The proximal 120 mm of the femur was omitted to mimic proximal bone deficiency. A tapered fluted stem (3 degrees, 150 mm) model was virtually implanted after reaming of the medullary canal. The contact length between stem and endosteal cortex was measured, in addition to other variables. The relationship between variables was evaluated using Spearman's correlation, and logistic regression analysis was used to identify predictors of the contact length (P < .05). RESULTS: The contact length varied widely between specimens (66.5 ± 16.6 mm, range: 21-98 mm). Contact increased with the depth of the isthmus below the lesser trochanter (range: 55-155 mm; r2 = 0.473, P = .005) and the distance between the isthmus and the distal edge of the damage zone (range: -9 to 96 mm; r2 = 0.508, P = .002). Stepwise regression identified the reaming length, distance between fracture and the isthmus, and isthmus diameter as independent predictors of contact length (r = 0.643). CONCLUSIONS: Contact is limited in specimens where the isthmus is more proximally located. In these cases, supplementary fixation using plating and/or longer, curved prosthesis may be considered.

Asunto(s)

Artroplastia de Reemplazo de Cadera , Prótesis de Cadera , Artroplastia de Reemplazo de Cadera/métodos , Fémur/diagnóstico por imagen , Fémur/cirugía , Humanos , Diseño de Prótesis , Reoperación/métodos , Estudios Retrospectivos

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Aim of this study was to evaluate stem subsidence and survivorship of implant following implantation of Revitan (Zimmer) and MP (Waldemar Link) stems. METHODS: Retrospective case series with clinical and radiological follow-up of 1-10 years. RESULTS: 47 Revitan and 57 MP stems were analyzed. In 12 cases there was subsidence of the stem present. Two Revitan stems and one MP stem were revised as a result of subsidence. Failure rate was 4.3% for Revitan, 1.8% for MP stem and difference was not statistically significant. CONCLUSION: There is no significant difference in subsidence or survivorship between Revitan and MP stems.